Apart from the general tax regime (which can include income tax, VAT, stamp duty and import duties), an aircraft or engine sales agreement is not subject to a specific tax or stamp duty under Thai law.

There is no specific requirement that an aircraft or engine sales agreement be translated, certified, notarised or legalised to be enforceable against a domestic party under Thai law. However, in the event of enforcement, certified Thai translations of the whole or any material part of the aircraft or engine sales agreement and any relevant agreements/documents may be required. These must be attached to the originals when they are submitted as evidence to a Thai court if applicable.

Thai law does not specifically provide for the transfer of title to an aircraft, engine or other installed parts, including the APU. The transfer will therefore be subject to general legal provisions regarding the transfer of ownership of movable property. Unless agreed or otherwise specified by the parties, the ownership of the property is generally transferred to the buyer from the moment the contract of sale is entered into.

Under Thai law, the sale of the ownership interest in the entity that owns an aircraft or engine will not effectively be recognised as a sale of the aircraft or engine itself.

Thai law recognises the contracting parties’ right to specify a foreign law to govern the bill of sale, to the extent that the law is not contrary to public order in Thailand or good morals. However, the party seeking to enforce the foreign law must prove that to the satisfaction of the Thai court. If they do not, Thai law will apply. In any event, the bill of sale and relevant agreements/documents and the transfer of title, must be legal, valid, binding and enforceable under Thai law and be in the forms prescribed by English law or New York law (as the case may be) and/or Thai law if they are to be legally enforced in Thailand.

Although the aircraft sale is not subject to specific formalities specified by Thai law, the contracting parties need, at a minimum, to ensure that the bill of sale is in writing and signed by the party liable, or that part performance or consideration is given and it is does not contradict public order in Thailand or good morals.

There is no specific requirement that a bill of sale be translated, certified, notarised or legalised to be enforceable against a domestic party under Thai law. However, in the event of enforcement, certified Thai translations of the whole or any material part of the bill of sale and any relevant agreements/documents may have to be submitted and attached to the originals when they are submitted as evidence to a Thai court.

A bill of sale is not required to be registered or filed with any government entity to become effective under Thai law.

There is no prerequisite that a bill of sale be delivered in relation to an aircraft in Thailand under Thai law.

Apart from the general tax regime (which can include income tax, VAT, stamp duty and import duties), a bill of sale is not subject to a specific tax or stamp duty under Thai law.

Subject to complying with the applicable laws, operating, wet and finance leases will be recognised and permissible, if, and to the extent that they are not contrary to Thai law or public order in Thailand or good morals. However, for wet leases, an air operator has to obtain permission from the Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand (CAAT). The air operator will have to submit an application in line with the Notification of CAAT regarding Criteria for the Use of Aircraft under the Wet Lease and Use of Aircraft under the Code Share Agreement by Air Operator. In granting permission, the CAAT will rely primarily on the criteria set out in the Notification.

The parties may agree for a lease to be governed by a foreign law. However, according to Thailand’s Act on Conflict of Laws BE 2481 (1938), the foreign law will only be applied to the extent that it does not contradict public order in Thailand or good morals. In addition, the party seeking to enforce the foreign law must prove that to the satisfaction of the Thai court. If they do not, Thai law will apply. In any event, the lease and relevant agreements/documents must be legal, valid, binding and enforceable under the foreign law and/or Thai law if they are to be legally enforced in Thailand. They must also be in the forms prescribed by the foreign law and/or Thai law to be legally enforced in Thailand.

In relation to property or assets, please note Sections 9 and 16 of the Act on Conflict of Laws.

Section 9 states: “Unless otherwise provided by this Act or other laws of [Thailand], the formal validity of a juristic act shall be governed by the law of the country where the act is made. However, the law of the country where a property is situated governs the form required for the validity of a contract, document or other juristic act relating to immovable property.”

Section 16 states: “Movable and immovable property is governed by the law of the place where the property is situated. However, in the case of exportation of movable property, the law of nationality of its owner shall govern from the time of exportation.”

No material restrictions are imposed on domestic lessees making rent payments to foreign lessors in US dollars. However, the domestic lessees must comply with, inter alia, the Thai exchange control, tax and anti-money laundering laws/regulations. The domestic lessees must also be able to provide documentary evidence for the transfer to the authorised juristic person or licensed financial institution.

Exchange controls in Thailand are primarily governed by the Exchange Control Act BE 2485 (1942) (as amended) and Ministerial Regulation No 13. Outward remittances for rent payments under, and according to, a valid lease are permitted, provided that proper documentary evidence for the payment is submitted to the authorised juristic person or licensed financial institution.

A lease agreement for movable property (eg, an aircraft) is not subject to stamp duty. However, where the lease of an aircraft is regarded as a hire purchase agreement, it will be subject to stamp duty at a rate of Thai baht that is equivalent to 0.1% (ie, THB1 for every THB1,000 or fraction thereof) of the total value, regardless of whether the agreement is in electronic or physical form.

Each executed physical copy, duplicate or counterpart of an instrument (if any) will be subject to stamp duty of THB1 if the duty with which the original is chargeable does not exceed THB5. Alternatively, it will be THB5 if the duty with which the original is chargeable exceeds THB5, except where the party liable to pay the duty is a co-operative society.

Under Thai law, the lessor does not have to be licensed or otherwise qualified in Thailand to lease an aircraft from abroad to a lessee in Thailand. However, a lease of property is considered a service business, which is a restricted business to foreigners, under List 3(21) of the Foreign Business Act BE 2542 (1999) (FBA). Therefore if any part of the lease activity carried out by a foreign lessor occurs in Thailand, the foreign lessor will be subject to the FBA and will have to obtain a foreign business licence from the FBA before they can carry out the business activity with a domestic lessee in Thailand.

A lease of property under Thai law, is a contract whereby the lessor agrees to let the lessee have the use or benefit of the property for a limited period and the lessee agrees to pay rent in return. Apart from that, there is currently no law that specifically requires particular terms to be included in a lease agreement for movable property.

Freedom of contract is an underlying principle of Thai law. It enables the intention of the parties to the contract to be recognised. The parties may therefore agree to tax and other withholding gross-up provisions and the provisions will be permissible and enforceable to the extent they are not contrary to public order in Thailand or good morals.

A lease may cover installed or replaced parts on an aircraft or engine after its execution, provided that terms to this effect are included in the lease agreement.

There could be a risk of title annexation in respect of aircraft engines installed on an airframe. Under Thai law, if several movable properties belonging to different persons are joined to become component parts or are indivisible, those different persons become co-owners of the composite property and each co-owner’s share will be in proportion to the value of their respective component part.

Notwithstanding this, if one of the component parts is regarded as a principal part, the owner of the principal part will become the sole owner of the entire composite property and they will be liable to pay the value of other parts respectively held by each of them to the other owners.

In addition, an express provision in the lease agreement that aircraft engines not be annexed as part of the airframe upon installation and having a nameplate fixed on each engine with a statement that the engine belongs to the owner/lessor and leased to the lessee will help mitigate the risk of title annexation.

Thai law does not recognise the common law concepts of liens, trust, charge, hypothecation or a security interest created under it, except in the context of the Trust for Transactions in Capital Market Act BE 2550 (2007). This Act provides for a trust to be created for the benefit of transactions carried out in the capital market. A trust and the role of an owner trustee under a lease are generally not recognised under Thai law therefore.

Thai law does not specifically require the registration of an aircraft lease or provide provision for this. To operate a leased aircraft lawfully in Thailand, the lessee (who must be a Thai national), as the operator, must generally register the aircraft in line with the Air Navigation Act BE 2497 (1954) and obtain a registration certificate (Sections 30 and 31 of the Air Navigation Act). The registration certificate is not a document of title in respect of the aircraft. If an aircraft owner is not the operator of the aircraft, the names and addresses of both the aircraft owner and aircraft operator may then practically be stated in the registration certificate. The operator’s rights in respect of the aircraft and the possession and use thereof (eg, as lessee in line with a lease agreement) might also be indicated in the registration certificate.

If a foreign aircraft registered with a state party to the Convention on International Civil Aviation is used by a Thai air operator for its operation under a lease agreement and Thailand has an agreement with the registry in that state to transfer the responsibility of the registry in that state to Thailand in line with the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the foreign aircraft is considered a registered aircraft under Thai law. Accordingly, specific licences or operations (eg, airworthiness certificate, personnel licence, air navigation of aircraft of the air operator, etc) will be subject to Thai law.

See 2.3.1 Notation of Owner’s/Lessor’s Interests on Aircraft Register.

See 2.3.1 Notation of Owner’s/Lessor’s Interests on Aircraft Register. Under Thai law, there is no specific register for leases concerning aircraft or engines.

See 2.3.1 Notation of Owner’s/Lessor’s Interests on Aircraft Register.

Leases are not subject to consent from any government entity under Thai law. Aircraft or engine leases do not have to be registered or filed with any government entity to become effective.

There is no prerequisite under Thai law for the execution and delivery of an aircraft or engine lease in relation to an aircraft in Thailand.

There is no specific requirement under Thai law that an aircraft or engine lease be in a specific form, translated, certified, notarised or legalised to be valid and enforceable against a domestic party. However, in the event of enforcement, certified Thai translations of the whole or any material part of the aircraft or engine lease and any relevant agreements/documents may have to be submitted and attached to the originals when they are submitted as evidence to a Thai court.

There is no registration of an aircraft or engine lease under Thai law. There are therefore no taxes/duties payable.

There are no common alternative countries to register Thailand-based aircraft in. Thailand-based aircraft are registered in Thailand.

All documents required and submitted to the officials should normally be certified as true copies of the original documents by the authorised director(s) or representative(s) of the company, with the company’s seal affixed, or as stipulated in the company’s affidavit, if the registrant is a juristic person, unless specified otherwise by the officials.

A foreign lessor could be subject to the following taxes upon leasing an aircraft or engine to a domestic or Thai lessee.

• Income tax: rental income paid from Thailand to a foreign company not carrying on business in Thailand is subject to income tax and the Thai taxpayer has to withhold the income tax at the rate of 15%, unless the exemption or a lower rate of withholding tax is applicable under a double tax agreement (if any).
• Customs duty: the importation of an aircraft of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kilograms (Harmonised Code No 8802.400) is exempt from customs duty.
• VAT on importation of leased property: the importation of an aircraft into Thailand is subject to VAT, which is currently imposed at the rate of 7%. The principal base for VAT computation is the aggregate of the value (CIF price) of the imported property or goods, customs duty, excise tax (if any) and other fees or surcharges applicable to the items imported. The VAT is payable by the importer upon the payment of import duty. If the importer is a VAT registrant, the VAT payable can be set off against the importer’s VAT liability or a refund can be claimed.
• VAT on rental payment: a lease of an aircraft is considered a provision of service performed in a foreign country and being used in Thailand. The lease is therefore subject to 7% VAT under Section 83/6(2) of the Thai Revenue Code. The lessee, as a payer of rental income, is liable to self-assess and remit 7% VAT to the Revenue Department on or before the seventh day of the month following the month of payment. If the lessee is a VAT registrant, this VAT can be used to set off the lessee’s VAT liability or a refund can be claimed.
• Stamp duty: an aircraft lease agreement is not subject to stamp duty. If the agreement is considered a hire purchase agreement, ad valorem stamp duty will be applicable.

Subject to the terms of the lease and other relevant facts or circumstances, it is unlikely that a foreign lessor will be considered to be resident, domiciled or carrying on business in Thailand by reason only of its execution or enforcement of an aircraft lease.

For tax, see 2.4.1 Tax Requirements for a Foreign Lessor.

Subject to the terms of the lease and other relevant facts or circumstances, it is unlikely that a foreign lessor will be subject to liabilities in respect of aircraft or engine maintenance and operations imposed on it by reason only of its execution of an aircraft lease. There is, at present, no specific law governing the obligation of the parties on the maintenance and operations of the aircraft or engine.

However, under the Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand (CCC), a lessor is generally liable for any defect arising during the lease period and the lessor must make all necessary repairs other than those required by laws or custom to be carried out by the lessee. If a lessee has incurred any expenses for the preservation of the leased property, the lessor will have to reimburse the lessee for all necessary and reasonable expenses, except expenses for ordinary maintenance and minor repairs. The parties to a lease agreement may contractually agree otherwise on these, as is typically the case in an aircraft lease.

Subject to the terms of the lease and other relevant facts or circumstances, it is unlikely that a foreign aircraft or engine owner or lessor, or financier, will be liable under the doctrine of strict liability as a result of damage or loss caused by the asset. The doctrine of strict liability is technically a common law principle. The lessor will more likely be liable under Thai tort law (eg, for wrongful acts).

Subject to the terms of the lease and other relevant facts or circumstances, it is unlikely that creditors of a domestic lessee could attach an aircraft leased to it but owned by a different entity. In the case of unpaid governmental fees for the operation prescribed by law, the aircraft might be prohibited from flying in Thailand. However, it will probably not be attached or retained by the governmental entity, which is the creditor in this case. The responsible authority can just refrain from issuing a permit for the aircraft to fly.

The obligations of a lessee under an aircraft or engine lease rank at least equally (pari passu) in respect of priority with all other unsecured obligations of the lessee under Thai law. The exception to this is specific classes of creditors. These classes of creditors are entitled to the mandatorily and generally applicable statutory preferential rights, general or special and therefore have preference over other unsecured creditors under the laws of Thailand (particularly under Sections 251 to 289 of the CCC and Section 130 of the Thai Bankruptcy Act).

It is not mandatory for insurance to be placed with a domestic insurance company.

Under the Thai aviation law and the relevant regulations, an aviation business operator must provide insurance that covers damages to the life, body and property of passengers and third parties. The minimum coverage is as follows:

• for passengers, 128,821 SDRs per person, per flight;
• for baggage, 1,288 SDRs per person, per flight;
• for goods, 22 SDRs per kilogram; and
• for third parties, from 0.75 million SDRs to 700 million SDRs, depending on the Maximum Takeoff Mass (MTOM) in kilograms.

For the combined single limit insurance, the minimum coverage for each aircraft will be calculated from:

• for passengers, 128,821 SDRs multiplied by the maximum number of passengers carried on the aircraft;
• for baggage, 1,288 SDRs multiplied by the maximum number of passengers carried on the aircraft;
• for goods, 22 SDRs multiplied by the weight of goods, in kilograms, carried on the aircraft; and
• for third parties, from 0.75 million SDRs to 700 million SDRs, depending on the MTOM in kilograms.

Reinsurance of up to 100% coverage can be placed outside Thailand. However, it is also reported that the Office of the Insurance Commission (OIC) (the regulatory body for the insurance industry in Thailand) has issued a circular letter to all licensed insurance companies in the country seeking co-operation to maintain a particular portion of domestic coverage. Although this does not have the force of law, insurance companies will generally follow the OIC’s request.

Thai law does not specifically prohibit the inclusion of “cut-through” clauses in insurance or reinsurance documents. However, in order to be valid and enforceable, “cut-through” clauses that are included need to comply with the requirements regarding third-party contract rights, as specified in the CCC. According to the CCC, the parties to a contract can agree to perform debt to a third party. However, the third party must notify its intention to the debtor (ie, the reinsurer) that it will take the benefits relating to the contract.

Thai law does not specifically impose any prohibitions on the assignment of insurance or reinsurance. The assignment of insurance or reinsurance can be made by complying with the conditions specified in the CCC, which state that:

• an assignment must be made in writing; and
• a written notification regarding the assignment must be sent to the debtor or written consent from the debtor must be obtained.

There are no restrictions on a lessor’s ability to terminate a lease, re-export the aircraft and/or sell the aircraft following termination.

The lessor can terminate the lease in line with the lease agreement.

Alternatively the lessor can re-export the aircraft but will have to comply with the regulations of the CAAT.

In addition, the lessor can sell the aircraft after termination if there are not any restrictions provided in the lease agreement.

The aircraft does not need to be physically located in Thailand at the time of termination and sale.

A court order must be obtained for the lessor to take physical possession of the aircraft without the lessee’s consent.

The Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) has jurisdiction to decide aviation disputes where the lessor is a foreign party, the lessee is Thai and the aircraft is delivered from a foreign country to Thailand.

All of these types of cases have been submitted to and considered by the IP&IT Court.

Under Thai law, interim relief pending final judgment can be obtained. A lessor must apply to the court to obtain emergency relief. If the court considers the case to be an emergency, it will conduct an ex parte hearing on the filing date. The court will decide on the interim relief requested and will only hear from the lessor. The evidential burden to obtain an emergency injunction in Thailand is very high. In practice, it is challenging to obtain these types of injunctions.

A lessor can also seek non-emergency injunctive relief, where the lessee will have an opportunity to challenge the lessor’s request. In this situation, the court will hear from both parties. The evidential burden to obtain relief here is lower.

A lessor cannot obtain summary judgment or equitable relief. A full trial must be conducted before a final judgment is issued and the concept of equitable relief is not recognised under Thai law.

Under Thai law, foreign law can apply as long as it is not contrary to public order in Thailand or good morals. The foreign law must also be proven to the satisfaction of the Thai courts.

The IP&IT Court has jurisdiction to consider cross-border aviation lease disputes. If the initiating party submits a claim to the IP&IT Court, it will accept and consider the case even in instances where the lease agreement specified that the case must be exclusively submitted to the foreign court.

However, if the initiating party submits a claim to a foreign court, the IP&IT Court will consider the foreign court order or judgment as evidence only. Foreign court orders or judgments are not enforceable in Thailand.

Domestic courts will generally uphold a waiver of immunity.

A domestic court in Thailand will not enforce a foreign court judgment. The foreign court judgment is recognised as evidence only.

However, a foreign arbitral award is recognised and enforceable without the merits of the case being re-examined.

If the request for monetary damage in the complaint is in a foreign currency, the Thai court will award it as requested.

There are no limitations on a lessor recovering default interest under the Thai statutory rate and additional rent following termination of the lease. The Thai court may enforce the default interest provided in the lease agreement but if the court considers the rate specified in the lease to be a penalty then the Thai court may use its discretion to reduce the default interest.

However, the Thai court may only award additional rent following termination of the lease if the actual loss is proven.

Legal fees and court filing fees will be the main fees required.

The notice period specified in the lease agreement must be complied with by the lessor. However, if the rent is due monthly and the notice period specified is less than 15 days, it is recommended that the lessor provide 15 days’ notice before termination, which is the notice period specified under Thai law.

A lessee is generally not entitled to claim sovereign or other immunity in a lease enforcement action.

Thailand is a party to the New York Convention. Foreign arbitral awards are generally recognised and enforced by the Thai courts as long as the award does not contravene public policy or public order in Thailand.

Lessors should be aware of CAAT Regulation No 44, which was announced in the Royal Thai Government Gazette on 15 December 2023. Under Clause 12 of the Regulation, the Director-General of the CAAT has the authority to deregister an aircraft without the lessee’s consent on any of the following grounds.

• If the registration certificate is invalid in line with Section 32 of the Air Navigation Act.
• If the aircraft is registered by the lessee and the possessory right to the aircraft in line with the lease agreement has expired because:
1. the lease agreement has expired due to the lease term;
2. the lease agreement has been terminated by the lessor or the lessee as specified in the lease agreement;
3. the lessor and lessee agree to terminate the lease agreement; or
4. the lessor notifies the termination of the lease agreement and submits an irrevocable deregistration power of attorney together with an application requesting the exportation of the aircraft.
• If a final court judgment orders cancellation or revocation of the registration certificate.

After receiving the deregistration certificate, applicants must:

• remove the Thai registration mark from the aircraft;
• reprogramme the Emergency Locator Transmitter; and
• return the registration certificate, airworthiness certificate and noise certificate within 30 days of the date of receipt of the deregistration certificate.

Thailand recognises the concepts of contractual assignment and novation.

Thailand is a freedom of contract jurisdiction and the assignment or novation of rights pursuant to a New York or English law-governed assignment and assumption agreement or novation/deed will be considered valid by a Thai court, to the extent that the provisions are not contrary to public order in Thailand, or good morals and are also not unfair. In any event, in addition to complying with these foreign law requirements, the assignment and assumption agreement or novation/deed and the creation or perfection thereof should also be carried out in line with, and, in the forms prescribed by Thai law. Accordingly, under Thai law, the consent of, or notice to, the debtor with respect to the assignment/novation in writing will also be required.

Assigning or Transferring Claims

Under Thai law, with respect to assignment (or transfer of claims), a claim may generally be assigned or transferred, unless its nature does not admit of it or it is not subject to judicial attachment, or if the parties have declared a contrary intention. However, this declaration of intention, cannot be set up against a third party acting in good faith. An assignment/transfer of the rights or obligations performable to a specific creditor will be valid only if made in writing. The assignment/transfer cannot be set up against the debtor or any third persons, unless notice of this has been given in writing to the debtor, or the debtor has consented to the assignment/transfer in writing.

If the debtor has only received a notice of assignment/transfer, they may set up against the assignee/transferee any defence that the debtor has had against the assignor/transferor before the notice was received. If the debtor has a claim not yet due at the time of the notice against the assignor/transferor, the debtor can set off the claim, provided that it would become due no later than the claim assigned/transferred.

An assignment/transfer of an obligation performable to order can be set up against the debtor or other third persons only if the assignment/transfer is endorsed on the instrument and the instrument itself is delivered to the assignee/transferee.

Novation

When the parties concerned have concluded a contract changing the essential elements of an obligation, this obligation is extinguished by novation. If a conditional obligation is made unconditional, a condition is added to an unconditional obligation or a condition is changed, it is regarded as a change of an essential element of the obligation. A novation by a change of the creditor is also governed by the provisions of the laws concerning the assignment. A novation by a change of the debtor may be affected by a contract between the creditor and the new debtor. However, this novation cannot be performed against the will of the original debtor. If the obligation resulting from a novation does not come into existence (or is annulled) because of an illegality or because of some reason unknown to the parties, the original obligation is not extinguished.

There is no specific requirement under Thai law that an aircraft or engine lease assignment and assumption/novation must be translated, certified, notarised or legalised to be enforceable against a domestic party. However, in the event of enforcement, certified Thai translations of the whole or any material part of the aircraft or engine lease assignment and assumption/novation and any relevant agreements or documents may have to be submitted and attached to the originals thereof when they are submitted as evidence to a Thai court.

It is not specifically required for an aircraft or engine lease assignment and assumption/novation to be registered or filed in the domestic aircraft registry under Thai law. Consent from any government entity is also not required. However, a registration certificate of an aircraft becomes ineffective when there is a change in the possessory right in the aircraft under Section 32 of the Air Navigation Act. Accordingly, where there is a change in the possessory right in the aircraft (ie, where there is a lease assignment and/or assumption/novation affecting the possessory right), the person who has the possessory right must seek permission for registration from the Minister of Transport as well as apply for registration of the aircraft.

A person flying an aircraft that is not registered under Section 30 of the Air Navigation Act will be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding THB40,000, or both, under Section 68 of the Air Navigation Act.

While an aircraft or engine lease assignment and assumption/novation is not specifically required under Thai law, for registration of an aircraft, a natural or juristic person, who applies for aircraft registration needs to hold Thai nationality.

Partnerships and Limited Companies

A partnership, limited company or public limited company will be registered under Thai law and the principal place of business of the partnership or company will be situated in Thailand.

• In the case of an ordinary partnership, all partners will hold Thai nationality.
• In the case of a limited partnership, all partners who jointly have unlimited liability will hold Thai nationality and at least 51% of the capital of the partnership will belong to natural persons who hold Thai nationality.
• In the case of a limited company or public limited company, the company will not have bearer shares on issue, a majority of its directors will hold Thai nationality and at least 51% of all of the shares will belong to any one or any combination of the following persons:
1. natural persons who hold Thai nationality;
2. ministries, sub-ministries or government departments;
3. limited companies or public limited companies, of which ministries, sub-ministries or government departments hold at least 51% of all of the shares;
4. limited companies or public limited companies, of which natural persons holding Thai nationality hold at least 51% of all of the shares; and
5. other juristic persons as specified in the Ministerial Regulations.

Associations

An association will be registered under the law of Thailand. The principal place of business of the association will be situated in Thailand and the regulations of the association have to have been approved by the Civil Aviation Board.

Registrations and Changes of Information

An application for registration and the aircraft registration must be made in line with applications, guidance or other documents as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations enacted by virtue of the Air Navigation Act. The period of completion is dependent upon whether the applicant has all of the documents required in order as well as the discretion of the Transport Minister.

If there is a change of information on the registration certificate, including a change in ownership of an aircraft, an application must be filed with the CAAT for the reissuance of the registration certificate within 30 days from the date of the change. An application for the reissuance of a certificate of registration can generally only be accepted if the applicant is the holder of the registration certificate.

Government applications or consents are not required as a prerequisite to the execution and delivery of an aircraft and/or engine lease assignment and assumption/novation in relation to an aircraft registered domestically.

An aircraft or engine lease assignment and assumption/novation under Thai law is not subject to stamp duty.

If the ownership interest of an entity owning an asset is transferred, the legal title to the asset, including aircraft, will remain with that entity. As Thailand has an operatory registry, documents evidencing the transfer of title of the aircraft to the owner, such as a bill of sale, will be used to determine the ownership of the aircraft.

The lessor, owner, lessee and authorised person specified in the lease agreement or any person(s) with a possessory right can request deregistration of an aircraft. See 2.6.13 Other Relevant Issues.

An aircraft owner, mortgagee or lessor can apply to the CAAT for deregistration without the lessee’s or operator’s consent.

The documents required for deregistration are as follows.

• A lease agreement.
• Evidence confirming the identity of the person applying for deregistration. For example, if the applicant is a legal entity (called a juristic person in Thailand), the corporate documents such as the incorporation certificate are required.
• A termination notice together with supporting evidence showing that the lessee is in default.
• An irrevocable deregistration power of attorney.
• An application for re-exportation.
• A power of attorney showing the person who submits the deregistration application is authorised by the applicant.

Without the lessee’s consent, deregistration can take approximately three to six months (if not longer).

In general, the CAAT confirms that the CAAT regulations will be followed and the case will be considered without delay.

There are no significant costs, fees or taxes chargeable in respect of deregistration, other than legal fees.

A deregistration power of attorney (DPOA) is recognised but only when submitted under CAAT Regulation No 44. There is no required form. It is not necessary to have the DPOA certified, notarised, legalised or translated. However, it is recommended that the DPOA be irrevocable and the applicant submit the original DPOA to the CAAT.

Additional documents required to enforce a DPOA include:

• a lease agreement;
• evidence confirming the identity of the person applying for deregistration. For example, if the applicant is a legal entity (called a juristic person in Thailand), corporate documents such as the incorporation certificate are required;
• a termination notice together with supporting evidence showing that the lessee is in default;
• an application for re-exportation; and
• a power of attorney showing the person who submits the deregistration application is authorised by the applicant.

A DPOA does not have to be governed by the laws of Thailand but must comply with the national laws of where it is made. However, with that in mind, a DPOA that does follow Thai law can help avoid any challenge raised by the CAAT or the lessee.

In theory, under Thai law, a DPOA expressed to be irrevocable can be revoked at any time. However, due to CAAT Regulation No 44 Clause 12(2)(d), an irrevocable DPOA is recognised by the CAAT. See 2.6.13 Other Relevant Issues.

An applicant who requests deregistration and re-export of the aircraft without the lessee’s consent must comply with CAAT Regulation No 44 Clause 12(2)(d).

If the owner, the mortgagee or the lessor can prove to the CAAT that it has the right to request deregistration then it can apply for the aircraft to be re-exported without the lessee’s consent.

In order for the owner, the mortgagee or the lessor to re-export the aircraft without the lessee’s consent, the applicant must comply with CAAT Regulation No 44 Clause 12(2)(d).

The aircraft must be located in Thailand when the applicant requests deregistration and re-export of the aircraft.

Aircraft export permits/licences are issued in Thailand. The flight permit for re-export of the aircraft is issued by the CAAT. After deregistration of the aircraft, the applicant can request the aircraft be re-exported. The applicant can alternatively request deregistration and re-export of the aircraft at the same time according to CAAT Regulation No 44 Clause 12(2)(d).

To export the aircraft, the lessor must ensure that any outstanding aircraft parking fees, maintenance fees and other official fees to the airport authority are paid.

The removal of registration marks from an aircraft is only made after deregistration is granted. In addition, an owner, lessor or mortgagee should expect to pay the debtor’s outstanding debts to government creditors in order to export the aircraft.

Under the Thai Bankruptcy Act BE 2483 (as amended), there are two types of insolvency proceedings in Thailand: bankruptcy and business rehabilitation. Both bankruptcy and business rehabilitation proceedings are under the jurisdiction of the Central Bankruptcy Court. Whether a lessee files for bankruptcy or business rehabilitation will have a significant effect on the lessor’s ability to repossess the aircraft.

Bankruptcy

If the lessee files for bankruptcy in Thailand, the lessor can still seek the deregistration and repossession of the aircraft. The lessor has this option regardless of whether the lessee is under absolute receivership in a bankruptcy. However, the lessor cannot file a lawsuit against the lessee for debts owed. The lessor has to submit a debt repayment application to the official receiver under the bankruptcy proceedings. The debt repayment application must be filed within two months of the date of the publication of an order placing the lessee in absolute receivership. However, if the lessor is located outside Thailand, the official receiver may grant an extension of time for a period not exceeding two months.

Business Rehabilitation

If the lessee files for rehabilitation in the Central Bankruptcy Court, it will be more challenging for the lessor to repossess the aircraft. Rehabilitation proceedings aim to resolve the debtor’s financial difficulties by allowing it to continue engaging in its business, while helping creditors be repaid. To allow the debtor to continue engaging in its business, the Bankruptcy Act gives the debtor relief from creditors by providing for an “automatic stay”. The “automatic stay” is imposed when the court accepts the debtor’s rehabilitation petition and prevents, among other things, creditors from pursuing claims against the debtor and restricting a creditor’s right to enforce security.

The Bankruptcy Act states that when the automatic stay is effective, an owner of leased property which is “essential for the operation of a debtor’s business” cannot recover the property when it is in the debtor’s possession or another person relying on the debtor’s rights (eg, a sublessee). However, if the lease agreement has expired, the lessor can recover its property.

When the debtor is an airline, the leased aircraft is likely to be considered essential for the operation of the debtor’s business. If the aircraft is not airworthy and the debtor has insufficient assets to properly maintain the aircraft, a lessor could argue that the leased aircraft is not essential to the debtor’s business.

See 2.9.1 Overview of Relevant Laws and Statutory Regimes Governing Restructurings, Reorganisations, Insolvencies and Liquidations.

If the lessee files for bankruptcy in another jurisdiction, the foreign action will have no legal effect on the deregistration or repossession in Thailand. Thailand is not a party to any international treaty on insolvency or on the enforcement of recognition of foreign judgments. Thai laws also do not specifically provide for direct enforcement of a foreign judgment. A foreign court action may be used as evidence in Thailand, but that is all.

Although the lessee is in the process of liquidation, the DPOA still stands. However, under the Bankruptcy Act, if the lessee is declared to be under receivership, they are prohibited from undertaking any act relating to its business, except if ordered by or with the approval of the court, the official receiver or a creditor’s meeting.

If a lessee in possession of an aircraft is put into liquidation or administration:

• the aircraft will not be considered as the lessee’s asset. However, the lease agreement can be reviewed by the official receiver;
• the repossession of the aircraft can be delayed on the termination of the lease as the termination can be reviewed and challenged by the official receiver;
• as mentioned in the first item, the aircraft will not be considered as the lessee’s asset and the official receiver must comply with the lease agreement; and
• the liquidator/administrator will not impose the rights of any other creditors in priority to the lessor’s. However, the secured creditor naturally has rights over the asset, which are secured by the debtor before the receivership order and so do not need to file a debt repayment application.

The unsecured assets of the lender will be managed by the official receiver. These assets will generally be sold at a public auction and money received by the official receiver will be distributed to all creditors who have submitted their debt repayment application on a pro rata basis.

The Bankruptcy Court can place an “automatic stay” (ie, a moratorium) if the lessee files a business reorganisation petition with the court and the term of the lease agreement has not yet expired. In this case, the lessor cannot repossess the aircraft from the day the court accepts the business reorganisation petition until the expiry of the time to implement the business plan or the day on which the business plan is successfully accomplished. The “automatic stay” is lifted on the day the court dismisses the debtor’s petition, rejects the case, or the day the debtor is placed into absolute receivership.

If a repossession action has been taken before the “automatic stay”, the “automatic stay” causes the repossession action to be suspended, unless otherwise ordered by the Bankruptcy Court which received the debtor’s rehabilitation petition. The repossession case can also resume after the day on which the Bankruptcy Court orders the business reorganisation and the party responsible for the rent defaults on payment under the lease agreement twice consecutively or commits a material breach of the agreement.

There are several ways in which a domestic lessee can be liquidated or placed into administration or receivership. These are as follows.

• The creditor of the lessee submits a complaint requesting the court declare the lessee bankrupt.
• A lessee who has more liabilities than assets can request the court declare the lessee bankrupt.
• The lessee files a business reorganisation petition with the court.

To repossess an aircraft during the insolvency of a lessee, the “automatic stay” must be lifted and the conditions stated in in 2.9.8 Liquidation of Domestic Lessees must be met.

The impact of the winding-up of a domestic lessee is as follows.

• Aircraft: because the aircraft is not the lessee’s asset, it will not be sold at a public auction.
• Lease rentals: the lessor has to submit a debt repayment application to the official receiver requesting the outstanding debts, which includes rent.
• Lease security deposit (please see the second point above).
• Maintenance reserves (please see the second point above).

Thailand has not ratified or acceded to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (the “Convention”) or the related Protocol on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment (the “Protocol”).

Thailand ratified the Chicago Convention in 1947, the Geneva Convention in 1967 and the Montreal Convention in 2017.

The Protocol does not apply in Thailand.

The Convention and Protocol are not enforceable in Thai courts.

Thailand ratified the 1948 Geneva Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft in 1967. However, Thailand is not a party to the 1933 Rome Convention.

Subject to complying with the applicable laws, there are no restrictions on foreign lenders financing an aircraft locally or borrowers using the loan proceeds.

Thailand has a comprehensive exchange control regime that regulates foreign exchange transactions, including outward remittances of Thai or foreign currency. Authorised juristic persons such as commercial banks in Thailand are allowed to approve specific foreign exchange transactions. Other foreign exchange transactions meanwhile can only be carried out with the approval of the Bank of Thailand.

With respect to necessary foreign currency remittances to repay a foreign loan or make payments under a guarantee or security document (net of applicable Thai withholding tax), the party seeking to remit the funds must, each and every time they make an application for outward remittance, submit documentary evidence with respect to the remittance (such as the relevant invoice, a copy of the relevant loan or other relevant agreement and any other relevant documents or instruments).

Subject to complying with the applicable laws, borrowers are permitted to grant security to foreign lenders to secure a valid primary obligation.

Subject to complying with the applicable laws, downstream, upstream and cross-stream guarantees by Thai companies or individuals as security for a valid primary obligation of a third-party debtor in favour of lenders are permitted. There are no consideration, corporate benefit or registration requirements for these guarantees to be valid under Thai law.

A pledge of shares of a domestic/Thai special purpose vehicle that owns the financed aircraft under Thai law is recognised and advisable.

The provisions relating to a negative pledge are recognised and acceptable under Thai law, if, and to the extent, they are not against Thai laws or public order in Thailand or good morals.

Subject to complying with the applicable laws, there are no material restrictions or requirements imposed on intercreditor arrangements.

The concept of agency and therefore the role of an agent (such as the facility agent) under a syndicated loan are recognised under Thai law.

Provisions or arrangements setting out subordination of any rights of a person to any rights of another person under an agreement are only binding and enforceable on those parties under Thai law. They are only binding and enforceable to the extent, and, upon the conditions as may be agreed upon by the parties concerned. However, they may not create preferential rights nor bind or try to enforce them against a third party.

Subject to complying with the applicable laws, the transfer or assignment of all or part of an outstanding debt under a valid English or New York law-governed loan is recognised and permissible under Thai law.

There are usury or interest limitation laws in Thailand. Principally, with respect to a loan transaction, interest will not exceed 15% per annum. However, the maximum interest rate chargeable by the international financial institutions which Thailand is a member of, or banks or financial institutions registered and located in foreign countries will not exceed 20% per annum.

If the applicable interest rate under the relevant agreement/document exceeds the maximum interest rate permissible under Thai law, the whole interest charged is void and unenforceable and only the principal amount will be recoverable.

If the interest has been paid, it was in violation of the law. As a result, the borrower cannot claim restitution. The lender must also apply the amount paid as interest in violation of the law towards repaying the principal and in this event, all interest accrued but unpaid may not be recoverable by the lender and/or the persons purportedly entitled to it under the terms of the agreement/document. The laws governing the maximum interest rate extends the scope of interest to benefits in lieu of interest.

The typical forms of security traditionally recognised under Thai law include:

• mortgage of immovable property (such as land, buildings and structures on the land and condominium units) or certain types of movable property (such as machinery and vessels);
• pledge of movable property (including shares); and
• business security under the Business Security Act BE 2558.

The Business Security Act BE 2558 makes provision for the recognition of a security interest created by a business security agreement. A business security agreement is an agreement whereby a contracting party (the security provider) has placed a property with the other contracting party (the security receiver) as security against debt repayment with no need for the property to be delivered to the security receiver. The creation of a business security is recognised as security interest under Thai law, which then will provide the security receiver with preferential rights over that asset in the case of bankruptcy.

The Business Security Act BE 2558 requires security receivers to be eligible persons which are defined in the Business Security Act BE 2558 and its ministerial regulations, which currently include, inter alia, Thai commercial banks and foreign banks providing a loan with Thai commercial banks. Otherwise, at present, foreign banks and foreign entities are not eligible security receivers as provided under the Business Security Act BE 2558 and its ministerial regulations.

A security provider may place its own property as security against debt repayment payable by a third person. A business security agreement must be made in writing and registered with the business security registration officer. However, Thai law does not presently facilitate the mortgaging of aircraft and registration or perfection of a mortgage over an aircraft under Thai law may therefore not currently be achievable or practicable. In specific circumstances, assignment of income/proceeds or insurance may be used.

In addition, guarantee and assignment are available forms of contract that could be used to create a contractual security arrangement under Thai law (in other words, “quasi security”). These contractual security arrangements will be enforceable between the parties but they will not create any priority over other creditors under Thai law. Debts that are secured by contractual security arrangements will be treated as unsecured debts. Claims against the guarantor under guarantee and the assignor under an assignment will rank at least pari passu with the claims of all other unsecured creditors of the guarantor or assignor.

At present a mortgage over an aircraft is not permissible in Thailand under Thai law.

Thai law does not principally recognise the common law concepts of liens, trust, charge, hypothecation or a security interest created thereunder, except in the context of the Trust for Transactions in Capital Market Act BE 2550 (2007), which provides for a trust to be created for the benefit of transactions in the capital market. The typical alternative structures that could be used include parallel debt or the appointment of a security agent instead of a security trustee.

Subject to complying with the applicable laws, a borrower may assign its rights under an aircraft lease (including in relation to insurances) to any person, including the security agent/trustee under Thai law.

In relation to mortgages, Thai law does not currently provide for the mortgaging of aircraft.

Assigning the rights and benefits without assigning the attendant obligations of a lessor is permissible under Thai law.

A security assignment or a guarantee can be expressed to be principally governed by English or New York law. However, attention should also be paid to Sections 9 and 16 of the Act on Conflict of Laws BE 2481 (1938).

• Section 9 states: “Unless otherwise provided by this Act or other laws of [Thailand], the formal validity of a juristic act shall be governed by the law of the country where the act is made. However, the law of the country where a property is situated governs the form required for the validity of a contract, document or other juristic act relating to immovable property.”
• Section 16 states: “Movable and immovable property is governed by the law of the place where the property is situated. However, in the case of exportation of movable property, the law of nationality of its owner shall govern from the time of exportation.”

Therefore, in addition to complying with the English or New York law requirements, the security assignment or guarantee and creation/perfection thereof, should be carried out in line with and in the forms prescribed by Thai law as well.

In addition, under Thai law and in any proceedings taken in Thailand for the enforcement of the security assignment or guarantee, the choice of English or New York law, as the case may be, to govern the security assignment or guarantee is a valid choice of law. The Thai courts will observe and give effect to the choice of English or New York law (as the case may be) as the governing law of the security assignment or guarantee, in so far as the English or New York law is established and proven to the satisfaction of the Thai court, and in the discretion of the Thai court, not considered contrary to public order in Thailand or good morals in any way.

If the foreign law is not proven to the satisfaction of the Thai courts, Thai law will apply. In any event, the security assignment or guarantee and any other relevant agreements/documents must be legal, valid, binding and enforceable under, and be in the forms prescribed by, English or New York law, as the case may be, and/or Thai law if they are to be legally enforced in Thailand.

Under Thai law, with respect to an assignment, a claim may be assigned or transferred, unless its nature does not allow this, it is not subject to judicial attachment or the parties have declared a contrary intention. However, the declaration of intention, cannot be set up against a third person acting in good faith. An assignment or transfer of the rights or obligations performable to a specific creditor is only valid if it is made in writing. The assignment or transfer cannot be set up against the debtor or any third persons unless notice has been given in writing to the debtor or the debtor has consented to the assignment/transfer in writing.

If the debtor has only received a notice of assignment or transfer, they may submit any defence that they have against the assignor or transferor before the notice was received against the assignee or transferee. If the debtor has a claim not yet due at the time of the notice against the assignor/transferor, the debtor can set off the claim, provided that it will become due not later than the claim assigned/transferred.

An assignment or transfer of an obligation performable to order can be set up against the debtor or other third persons only if the assignment or transfer is endorsed on the instrument and the instrument itself is delivered to the assignee or transferee. A novation by a change of the creditor is also governed by the provisions of the laws concerning the assignment. A novation by a change of the debtor may be effected by a contract between the creditor and the new debtor. However, the novation cannot be done against the will of the original debtor.

There is no specific requirement under Thai law that a security assignment be translated, certified, notarised or legalised to be enforceable against a domestic party. However, in the event of enforcement, certified Thai translations of the whole or any material part of the relevant agreements or documents may have to be submitted and attached to the originals thereof when they are submitted as evidence to a Thai court.

See 3.2.7 Formalities/Mandatory Terms to Create and Perfect Security Assignments. Thailand has not ratified or acceded to the Convention or the Protocol.

There is no specific requirement under Thai law for an assignment to be registered with any local authority.

Subject to complying with the applicable laws, the transfer of security interests over an aircraft or engines is recognised in Thailand.

Depending on the change and the type of security or security interest, the security interests could be jeopardised.

See 3.2.3 Trust/Trustee Concepts.

Subject to the terms of the lease and other relevant facts or circumstances, it is unlikely that a secured party under a security assignment will be considered to be resident, domiciled or carrying on business in Thailand by reason only of its execution or enforcement of a security assignment.

Thai law does not provide for the mortgaging of aircraft at present and registration or perfection of a mortgage over an aircraft under Thai law may therefore not currently be achievable or practicable.

Subject to complying with the applicable laws, a pledge of spare engines might be practically feasible.

Subject to complying with the applicable laws, assignment of a bank account and sometimes a pledge of a bank account will typically be used. In addition, a security interest over a bank account created under and according to the Business Security Act BE 2558 will also be recognised.

Thai law does not recognise the common law concept of a lien or a security interest created under it. However, under Thai law, the right of retention and preferential rights, general or special, are recognised and provided for. The right of retention permits the lawful possessor of a property belonging to another party who has an obligation in their favour in relation to the property possessed to retain the whole of the property until the obligation is fully performed.

Under the CCC, the right of retention only covers the obligation or value of the work done in relation to the asset or property that is in their possession.

Thai law does not recognise the concept of a fleet lien. A third party can only have the right of retention over an asset that they possess.

The right of retention permits the lawful possessor of a property to retain the whole of the property until the debt or obligation in relation to the property possessed is fully paid or performed. Thai law does not provide for the mortgaging of aircraft at present and so registration or perfection of a mortgage over an aircraft under Thai law may therefore not currently be achievable or practicable.

Thai law does not currently provide for the mortgaging of aircraft and accordingly, registration or perfection of a mortgage over an aircraft under Thai law may not currently be achievable or practicable. Subject to complying with the applicable laws, a security interest over an aircraft under, and according to, the Business Security Act BE 2558 could probably be created and recognised.

See 3.3.1 Third-Party Liens.

An aircraft cannot be mortgaged or pledged under Thai law at present. However, an aircraft can be registered as a business security under the Business Security Act BE 2558. In this event, a purchaser can verify the business security with the Department of Business Development.

The concept of security assignment is not recognised under Thai law. However, assignment of an account receivable in project finance may be considered a novation and applicable under Thai law, if a written assignment agreement is made between an assignor and assignee with consent from, or notification, to a debtor.

Enforcement can only be made through a court. However, unlike enforcing a loan, the right to enforce a guarantee is subject to particular requirements under the CCC, such as:

• the timing of the demand notice;
• the duration of the debt;
• the maximum amount secured; and
• so on.

In order for the guarantee agreement to be enforceable, it must also be made in writing and be signed by the guarantor. Particular specific incidents may result in a guarantee being discharged, such as the creditor granting the debtor an extension of time for payment.

As the concept of a security trustee is not recognised under Thai law, enforcement of the rights under the security assignment requires litigation in the Thai courts.

Whenever the governing law is foreign law, the foreign law can apply in so far as it is not contrary to public order in Thailand or public policy. If the Thai court establishes that foreign law applies, the party relying on the foreign law has to prove the foreign law is applicable to the satisfaction of the Thai court. If they do not, Thai law will apply.

There has been no instance of the Thai court dismissing a case based on a choice of forum clause designating a foreign court. Indeed, case precedents show that the Thai court has discretion to exercise jurisdiction contrary to the clause when the Thai court has jurisdiction over the dispute.

Thailand is not a party to any conventions on enforcing foreign judgments. Thai courts do not enforce foreign judgments but will accept foreign judgments as evidence in a new trial. Even if the foreign judgment is based on the merits, the claimant must present all the key witnesses and testimony in the new trial before the Thai court.

A foreign arbitral award can be enforced after the Thai court has recognised and enforced the award in line with the procedures of a normal lawsuit by filing an application for enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. In response to the application, the Thai court will look at procedural and due process matters related to the foreign arbitral proceeding and not the underlying merits.

The Thai court will therefore usually grant an order to enforce the award unless it finds one of the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award as prescribed in Section 43 of the Arbitration Act BE 2545, which states similar conditions as set out in the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. In addition, in line with Section 44 of the Act, the Thai court will refuse to enforce an arbitral award if it finds that an award dealing with a dispute cannot be settled by arbitration or if the enforcement would be against public order in Thailand or public policy.

A secured party will need the lessee’s or operator’s consent.

The common civil courts generally have authority to try to adjudicate civil cases concerning enforcement of a security agreement.

There is no summary judgment procedure of the type of case found in Thai civil procedure law. The Thai court normally requires the entire case to be tried in court before rendering its judgment regarding the enforcement of any agreements, including security agreements.

In rendering a judgment, the Thai court may, at its discretion, enter a judgment in a foreign currency (if requested in the complaint), even if the obligations of the debtor are originally expressed in a foreign currency.

If there is interest on a loan paid to a creditor, the creditor is generally liable to income tax.

The fees for enforcement of a court judgment typically range from 1% to 3% of the amount seized or attached or the value of the asset attached.

The litigation process in Thailand can be lengthy. In some cases, the market value of an aircraft may decrease below the repayments owed on the aircraft due to the length of enforcement time.

In addition, a debtor may not have or be able to access technical aircraft documentation, as there is no central authority in Thailand for keeping these records. A proper records management system should therefore be set among, or between, the parties involved.